Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
yes, I know we were talking about the media (as compared to discussing the Clintons???).
If it was relevant to ask a candidate if he would go to a gay wedding, therefore assuming that it would effect how he would govern, that views on marriage would be an important qualification for being President, then it seems to me that asking Hillary about her views of protecting her husband's marital infidelity in order to protect his presidency (and clear any obstruction to her's) would be as relevant and even more so than asking if a candidate would go to a gay wedding. And if it was nobody's business about their marital relationship, and if it's not relevant what Hillary's opinion is about it, then why is it anybody's business whether a candidate would go to a gay marriage or even his opinion about it? So, yes, we are talking about the media (and much more than that in this thread), and when they start asking her about her marriage relationship, and about her approval of playing it down so as not to disturb her run for the presidency, then I will see a bit of "fairness" or "equality" in media coverage.
But, then, as I say, my thread is much more about something else which makes the question irrelevant. It is about the Presidents constitutional duties, and the irrelevance of attending a gay wedding in relation to those constitutional duties.
The questions about Obama's religion, birth, etc where all over Fox news 2 election cycles ago (I thought Bill O'Reilly even said he covered Obama's birth in Kenya  )
As erroneous as the assumption about Obama's birth seems to have been, it was a relevant constitutional question.
I do think the question has merit currently where an ever increasing majority of the public believes that gays should be allowed to get married and more and more states are allowing gays to get married. It might not have had relevance before the states started to allow them to get married (as a hypothetical question). One candidate (can't remember which one) has said something like "I'd love and support them but not go to their wedding" - I don't think love and supporting them but not going to their wedding is the same thing. |
It doesn't have merit in terms of what and how the President operates his/her term of office. And, constitutionally, it is a state question, not a federal one. That is, in the original, pre-transformed one. So you might as a state governor have an interest in the question, but even in that situation it should have no bearing on your role as governor.
Whether or not numbers of people believe in gay marriage is still not relevant to how a President should govern. His/her constitutional duties do not pertain to marriage, nor how the people feel about it.